Database of Precedents
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – CYQAA – Partial compliance (2024) strategic plan, stakeholder, stakeholders involvement
CYQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords strategic plan, stakeholder, stakeholders involvement Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “12. The Register Committee noted the concerns raised by the panel that CYQAA’s Strategic Plan (2020-2025) is rather generic, with no specific
activities and clear timeframes. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the panel did not see any evidence of public, annual corporate or activity plan than operationalise the Strategic Plan.
13. The Register Committee understood by the panels analysis, that the agency involves representatives from both public and private universities, students and regulated professions. However, as underlined by the panel, the involvement of private higher education institutions and many public and private colleges and their students is very limited and CYQAA should further widen their engagement in its governance and evaluation processes.
14. Considering the lack of comprehensive and rather generic Strategic Plan and the shortcomings in the involvement of stakeholders from all
higher education institutions, public and private colleges, the Register Committee concurred with the panel and found that CYQAA only partially
complies with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – Unibasq – Compliance (2024) Distinction between ESG aligned and consultancy activities
Unibasq
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 04/04/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Distinction between ESG aligned and consultancy activities Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “14. In its previous decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 11-05-2019), Unibasq was found to be partially compliant with the standard as it did not make a clear distinction between its ESG aligned and consultancy activities (i.e. the evaluation of “títulos propios”). At the time, the agency removed the information regarding the evaluation of “titulos proprios” from its website; the Committee, however, could not verify whether the new method of communication brought clarity for all stakeholders.
15. From the external review report, the Committee has learned that the agency “ has made...efforts to request from higher education institutions [involved in the consultancy activities] not to use misleading information on their websites and has succeeded as far as the panel could determine through an internet search”.
16. The Committee therefore followed the panel’s conclusion and found that the agency now complies with the standard. The Committee, however, shared the panel’s view that the agency could improve the distinction between these two group of activities by creating a separate section on its website where it showcases clear information to the public.
17. For the remaining standards, the Register Committee was able to concur with the review panel's analysis and conclusion without further comments.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – MFHEA – Partial compliance (2024) student in governance, distintion between activities
MFHEA
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/10/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords student in governance, distintion between activities Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “44. MFHEA has a mission statement which is publicly available and included in the strategic plan. As outlined by the panel, however, the strategic plan lacks a detailed outline of clear and explicit goals.
45. The Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that MFHEA did not ensure a clear distinction between its external quality assurance activities in the field of higher education and its other fields of work. In its statement on the report, the agency explained in order to enable a clear distinction
between its activities, it plans to initiate legislative changes. These changes, however, were either planned to happen later in 2024 or in 2025.
46. The Register Committee also learned from the report that MFHEA involves external stakeholders from different sectors in its governance and
work, e.g., members of the Board have different backgrounds in higher education. The Committee, however, noted that students are not involved in
the work of the governance body (or governance), i.e., the Board nor in its accreditation body, i.e., the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC). The Register Committee understood that in order to ensure better involvement of stakeholders, including students, in its governance structures, MFHEA
has foreseen legislative changes.
47. For the Committee it was unclear which particular changes will take place in order to address the lack of clear distinction between higher education and non-higher education activities and the lack of student involvement in the governance and work of the agency (in the Board and the
QAC), and whether the planned legislative changes have been adopted yet
48. In its additional representation, the agency informed that the clear distinction between MFHEA’s external quality assurance activities in higher
education and its other fields of work, will be ensured through structural changes in its organisational structure; the agency plans to set two units
tackling further and higher education separately.as of January
2025. Furthermore, the agency informed that legal provisions were amended to
include student representatives in the Quality Assurance Committee and the MFHEA Board and that students are now represented in both of them.
49. The Register Committee noted and welcomed the planned changes aiming to ensure clear distinction between its external quality assurance
activities in the field of higher education and its other fields of work and the involvement of students in the Board and the Quality Assurance Committee.
50. However, given the concerns raised above and that relevant parts of the presented actions are yet to be fully translated into the daily work of the
agency, they remain to be reviewed by an external review panel. Therefore, the Committee could not concur with the panel and found that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – EVALAG – Partial compliance (2024) Student involvement in governance
EVALAG
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 02/07/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Student involvement in governance Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “17. In its last decision for renewal of registration on EQAR (of 2019-11-05), evalag was found to be partially compliant with the standard as it had no clear overarching strategy, bringing together planning, budgeting and risk assessment. Furthermore, the main decision-making body, the Foundation Board, did not included a student member.
18. From the review report and the panel’s analysis the Register Committee noted that the main shortcomings identified in the previous decision were only minimally improved i.e., the statutory changes in order to involve student member in the Foundation Board, limits their involvement only in specific cases ( “If international standards in the field of study and teaching are dealt with, a student member may be called upon as a permanent or temporary, non-voting guest.”)
19. Furthermore, the Committee understood that evalag, at the time of the review, worked on a new overarching strategy bringing together planning, budgeting and risk assessment, however this strategy was to be approved only in July 2024.
20. Considering the minimal improvements made since the last decision, the Register Committee could not follow the panel’s judgement of compliance and found that evalag complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ANVUR – Partial compliance (2025) Lack of stakeholder involvement in governance bodies
ANVUR
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 14/03/2025 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Lack of stakeholder involvement in governance bodies Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “23. The Register Committee learned from the review report that the Governing Board of ANVUR consists exclusively of university professors, while no other stakeholders were involved in the governance of the agency.
24. In its additional representation, ANVUR explained that their regulations do not prevent any expert, regardless of which stakeholder group they belong to, from being a member of the Governing Board. In the Register Committee’s view, however, participation in the Governing Board is challenging, especially for students, due to the full-time character of the role, even though there are different governance arrangements and divisions of governance tasks which would enable broader stakeholder involvement. (e.g. by reducing the expected working hours for some stakeholder groups).
25. ANVUR further argued that stakeholders are involved in other bodies of the agency, such as the Advisory Board, leading to ANVUR’s governance being informed by stakeholders. While the Register Committee found the involvement of stakeholders in the work of the Advisory Board to be a positive practice, it noted that this does not fulfil the requirements of the standard which implies stakeholders’ involvement in strategic decision-making (governance), and not merely in the advisory processes of the agency.
26. Considering lack of stakeholder involvement, beyond the university academic staff, in ANVUR’s governance, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion and found that ANVUR only partially complies with ESG 3.1.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – AQUIB – Partial compliance (2024) Stakeholder involvement in governance
AQUIB
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Stakeholder involvement in governance Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “15. The Register Committee learned that the governing body of AQUIB (i.e., the Board of Directors), is composed exclusively of representatives of the University of the Balearic Islands (UIB) and the regional government. The Board does not include student members nor other stakeholders.
16. The Register Committee learned that AQUIB has prepared a draft of the new Statutes which, in the review panel’s view, would ensure a more representative composition of the Board of Directors. However, these Statutes are not yet in force at the time of the review.
17. Considering lack of stakeholder involvement in AQUIB’s governance, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion of compliance and found that AQUIB only partially complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ACCUA – Compliance (2024) stakeholders invovlement
ACCUA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/11/2024 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords stakeholders invovlement Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. In its last decision, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of stakeholders involvement on governance level and its lack of strategic planning.
14. The Register Committee learned from the panel’s analysis that the agency has addressed the issues raised in the previous review. The Committee noted that ACCUA has involved students and other stakeholder as members of the Governing Council of the agency. Furthermore, the Committee noted that ACCUA adopted an Initial Action Plan which is well-conceived to carry forwards the agency's mission and vision.
15. Following the improvements towards ESG compliance undertaken by the agency, the Register Committee was able to follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – ACSUCYL – Partial compliance (2025) Student involvement
ACSUCYL
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/06/2025 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Student involvement Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “28. In the last decision of renewal of registration, the Register Committee found the agency to be partially compliant due to the lack of student involvement in the agency’s governance and work. To offer students the opportunity to contribute to governance and operations, the agency at that time established a Student Board, however, only as an advisory board without further involvement in the agency’s decision-making. The Register Committee found that students have not been included as members of the Board of Directors (the governance body of the agency). While ACSUCYL made attendance of students at the meetings of the Board of Directors possible since October 2021, the agency has not yet utilised it in practice.
29. The Register Committee noted from the panel analysis that since the last review, the agency included a student in the Degree Assessment Commission.
30. In its statement to the report, ACSUCYL explained that they have not employed this in practice because, since the change, the Board of Directors' meetings have only addressed management, administrative, and financial issues.
31. While the Register Committee welcomed the action taken for better student involvement in the work of the agency, it found that the involvement of students in the governance of the agency (as per the requirement of the standard) remains insufficient, given that students are not involved in the Board of Directors.
32. In its additional representation, ACSUCYL noted that while student participation had not been utilised in the Board of Directors due to the nature of issues discussed in its meetings, this practice was now initiated in their recent meeting. The agency has updated the rules governing the functioning of the Student Board to include them in the decision-making process and approved the proposal to initiate legislative changes to include student members in the Board of Directors (see more under ESG 3.3).
33. The Register Committee welcomed the actions taken by the agency in order to address the concerns on student involvement. Nevertheless, the Committee could not confirm how these changes have been implemented in practice. Furthermore, the announced changes in legislation are yet to be enacted and systematically implemented. The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel that the agency complies only partially with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance – MusiQuE – Partial compliance (2025) Distinction between the external quality assurance and consultancy
MusiQuE
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 18/11/2025 Standard 3.1 Activities, policy and processes for quality assurance Keywords Distinction between the external quality assurance and consultancy Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “17. The Register Committee found from the panel analysis that the status and the role of the Critical Friend Review are unclear to MusiQuE's stakeholders. Guiding documents and practice show minor inconsistencies, and interviews revealed diverging stakeholder views on how the procedure is perceived.
18. The panel found that MusiQuE conducts consultative Critical Friend visits using the same procedure as those within the Critical Friend Review, even though the former is a consultative, advisory version, while the latter is part of a formal quality assurance activity aligned with the ESG.
19. According to the panel's analysis, the two activities are conceptually distinct. However, stakeholders often perceive them as conflated, and in practice they may become indistinct. Additionally, although rules for conflicts of interest exist on paper, they are not always clear to involved parties.
20. Taking into account the lack of a clear distinction between the external quality assurance activity and the consultancy nature of the Critical Friend visits for the public and stakeholders, the Register Committee concurred with the panel that MusiQuE complies with the standard only partially.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – SKVC – Compliance (2022) lack of internal appeals process for HEIs in exile
SKVC
Application Renewal Review Targeted, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords lack of internal appeals process for HEIs in exile Panel conclusion Compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “13. The Register Committee shared the panel's reservations that the inability for higher education institutions in exile to use SKVC's internal appeals process is a shortcoming.
14. Given that this only concerns one single institution at the moment and no accreditation has taken place so far, the Committee, however, did not consider this shortcoming material enough to influence the conclusion per this standard and concurred with the panel's conclusion that SKVC complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AVAP – Compliance (2023) weak complaints' and appeals' procedures
AVAP
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 03/03/2023 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords weak complaints' and appeals' procedures Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “After the external review report has been published, the agency provided the full documentation on its
new internal provision for complaints and appeals and the functioning of its new appeals’ body. The Committee noted that the Protocols and Appeals Commission is now operative and that the accreditation process has been
with AVAP’s evaluation commissions. The Committee further noted that AVAP’s QA protocol clearly defines
the process for complaints (dissatisfaction with the conduct of the process
or those conducting it) and the process for appeals (to challenge the formal
outcome), and that the process to receiving complaints has been improved.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – IQAA – Partial compliance (2022) Lack of clarity of complaints process, limited appeal's procedures
IQAA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 25/10/2022 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of clarity of complaints process, limited appeal's procedures Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “Complaint’s process is not always clear – the regulations only describe the outcomes in cases when higher education
institutions contest the behaviour of an expert, but not in the cases when factual errors in the process are noted. In addition, the higher education institutions can only appeal decisions with a negative outcome.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – FINEEC – Partial compliance (2022) Lack of formal complaints procedure; Appeals limited to negative decisions only
FINEEC
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 27/06/2022 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of formal complaints procedure; Appeals limited to negative decisions only Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The institutions undergoing a review by FINEEC are limited to make an appeal only in a case of a negative
outcome.That the remarks on the review process are given in an informal manner.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AI – Partial compliance (2021) Lack of formal complaints procedure and appeals' procedure
AI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 15/10/2021 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Lack of formal complaints procedure and appeals' procedure Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The appeals process remains to be led by an external body. The agency is not handling any formal complains or appeals itself.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – UKÄ – Partial compliance (2021) No formal complaints procedure; Advisory role of appeals commitee
UKÄ
Application Initial Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 18/03/2021 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords No formal complaints procedure; Advisory role of appeals commitee Panel conclusion Partial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “UKÄ has no formal complaints procedure in place (p. 34), even though the panel was confident that any issues stakeholders have, related to the work of the agency, are taken up by UKÄ. The report further discussed the advisory role of the appeals committee and the panel was concerned that this approach, paired with the fact that the committee cannot make recommendations how to correct potential errors, could undermine the authority of the appeals committee.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – QQI – Compliance (2019) Scope of the appeals system
QQI
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Scope of the appeals system Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee noted the panel's remark that the outcomes of cyclical institutional reviews can currently not be appealed, while noting thata provider “may still wish to challenge the findings in a way that would be better suited to an appeals process rather than a complaints process” (p. 33).The Register Committee has generally understood the standard to require that all results of external quality assurance processes be open to appeal, hence including reports that do not include “categorical decisions”.The Committee therefore underlined that QQI should consider widening the scope of its appeal system in monitoring the fitness for purpose of the current arrangements, per the panel's remarks. ”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – EVALAG – Compliance (2019) Independence of the appeals committee
EVALAG
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 05/11/2019 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Independence of the appeals committee Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “In the previous decision to renew evalag’s registration the Register Committee flagged for attention how evalag has followed up the recommendation to separate the bodies in charge of appeals from the bodies deciding on accreditation, and to rule out parallel memberships.The review panel confirmed the independence of the appeals committee from the evalag decision-making body for accreditation. The panel further reported that parallel memberships are now ruled out. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – AHPGS – Compliance (2020) brief procedure for complaints and appeals
AHPGS
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 16/03/2020 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords brief procedure for complaints and appeals Panel conclusion Substantial compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Compliance “33. […] there was only a brief procedure for complaints and appeals, and that the process was not fully known by the universities concerned; the Appeals Committee was not yet appointed, neither another body that deals with complaints and appeals.
34. [...] a statutory change, introducing the legal basis of the Appeals Committee, had entered into force and that the Appeals Committee had subsequently been appointed.
35. Having considered the additional information, the Register Committee concurred with the review panel's conclusion that AHPGS complies with the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – NOKUT – Partial compliance (2018) Absence of a formal complaints procedure
NOKUT
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 06/12/2018 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Absence of a formal complaints procedure Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) – RC decision Partial compliance “The Register Committee noted the panel's analysis that the complaints procedure “is less clearly defined”. While the Committee acknowledged that the prevailing culture of dialogue meant that institutions were aware of their opportunities to voice complaints, it considered that the possibility to complain and the related procedures should be explicitly spelled out, e.g. in the relevant guides for institutions, as required by the standard.”
Full decision: see agency register entry
-
2.7 Complaints and appeals – ANECA – Compliance (2018) Availabily of appeals for monitoring procedures
ANECA
Application Renewal Review Full, coordinated by ENQA Decision of 11/09/2018 Standard 2.7 Complaints and appeals Keywords Availabily of appeals for monitoring procedures Panel conclusion Full compliance Clarification request(s) Panel (09/06/2018)
RC decision Compliance “The Register Committee also noted that appeals are not made available in case of MONITOR procedure […]. The review panel stated as the activity has a supportive /developmental nature and that no decisions are taken on its basis no appeals can be issues. The panel noted that it had discussed the complaints (and appeals) procedures with key stakeholders, who expressed their satisfaction with the functioning of the processes and confirmed that the agency considered all appeals and complaints according to its policy and within a reasonable time-frame.”
Full decision: see agency register entry